I think it’s tricky because the term AA has encountered a reappropriation of sort over time. The necessity of its creation stemmed from the question of BLACK AMERICAN identity and us grappling with our history of slavery and who we were beyond that ancestrally. It was a term directed at reclaiming our deeper roots beyond our existence in American Slavery, Jim Crow, Civil rights etc. During its popularisation in the late 80s that was its original etymological function.
However we aren’t a xenophobic/exclusivist people or culture so there’s a very Pan-Africanist acceptance of black immigrants who don’t come from that original lineage and by the time they are second generation Americans, one wouldn’t necessarily resist them blending into being “African Americans” as a whole. It becomes difficult tho because that term was originally used to describe our lineage and now it’s used in a much looser way and that presents unforeseen, rather interesting socio-political issues (like the one we’re having considering Kamala’s candidacy).
It also begs larger political questions like, if someone doesn’t come from that ADOS lineage, can they truly represent those interests effectively on a political stage? And even more interestingly, if not, then what do we do?
I agree, but that's because of white people. They did that shyt and are the reasons race and ethnic identity is so fukked up in this country. They made it so if you're black then you're black no matter where you come from which is what I was getting at in the first place. I think ADOS is an important distinction to make, but at the same time we have to acknowledge why things are fukked up in the first place. People in here were blaming other black Americans that weren't ADOS which I think is completely wrong. Also Kamala is dangerous for other reasons outside of identity politics and won't be getting my vote.